Judge allows major 'right to repair' lawsuit against John Deere to move forward(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Judge allows major 'right to repair' lawsuit against John Deere to move forward
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/08/judge-allows-major-right-to-repair-lawsuit-against-john-deere-to-move-forward/
79 comments
Site rejects EU because RGPD, alt URL: https://archive.is/e77LB
If you request summary dismissal of a lawsuit you end up losing, you should be required to pay double-damages.
This whole idea of each party delaying the case requesting summary dismissal just to drive costs up for the other side is stupid.
This whole idea of each party delaying the case requesting summary dismissal just to drive costs up for the other side is stupid.
What you want is fee-shifting. Doesn't need to be tied to the presence of a motion to dismiss. Unfortunately this is so un-American a concept we literally call it the French Rule (or the English Rule)[0].
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to make getting rid of bullshit lawsuits easier. That is, if someone sues you for something that, say, isn't actually illegal, you get to throw out the lawsuit without having to go through discovery and a trial. This is important because rich people who can afford lawyers will absolutely sue[1] you as a censorship tactic, and being able to dismiss the suit quickly is the difference between a $10k legal bill and a $100k legal bill. In fact, anti-SLAPP bills work by giving you a fancy motion to dismiss that also triggers fee-shifting - which is enough for the rich person's lawyers to dissuade them from a censorious lawsuit.
So I don't think we should make motions to dismiss more perilous to file. They're the last speck of respectability in our awful legal system. We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money.
[0] Except in copyright where you can get fee-shifting under specific conditions.
[1] Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to make getting rid of bullshit lawsuits easier. That is, if someone sues you for something that, say, isn't actually illegal, you get to throw out the lawsuit without having to go through discovery and a trial. This is important because rich people who can afford lawyers will absolutely sue[1] you as a censorship tactic, and being able to dismiss the suit quickly is the difference between a $10k legal bill and a $100k legal bill. In fact, anti-SLAPP bills work by giving you a fancy motion to dismiss that also triggers fee-shifting - which is enough for the rich person's lawyers to dissuade them from a censorious lawsuit.
So I don't think we should make motions to dismiss more perilous to file. They're the last speck of respectability in our awful legal system. We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money.
[0] Except in copyright where you can get fee-shifting under specific conditions.
[1] Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP
> We should instead make wasting the other party's time cost money.
How do you prove that, though?
How do you prove that, though?
You don't prove it, the other party proves it to the judge by their inept case.
I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves.
For those representing themselves it should start coming up a bit before they'd be declared a vexatious litigant. For those represented by an attorney, it should probably be the attorney paying the fee for wasting the other party's time and money.
I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves.
For those representing themselves it should start coming up a bit before they'd be declared a vexatious litigant. For those represented by an attorney, it should probably be the attorney paying the fee for wasting the other party's time and money.
> I think limits should be placed even on this, as poorer people are more likely to have a bad case as a plaintiff as they can only afford to personally represent themselves.
That is a bad argument. Poor people are unable to afford a lawyer in the first place for this (or they do not know they can sue over this-the poor tend to be poor in more ways than just money). They will act out in other ways. These lawsuits are primarily the domain of the rich or the middle class very vengeful.
Right now, the fact that judges have not already implemented anti-SLAPP as a rule instead of keeping these frivolous avenues to sue is another sign of corruption in the judiciary that keeps lawyers employed.
That is a bad argument. Poor people are unable to afford a lawyer in the first place for this (or they do not know they can sue over this-the poor tend to be poor in more ways than just money). They will act out in other ways. These lawsuits are primarily the domain of the rich or the middle class very vengeful.
Right now, the fact that judges have not already implemented anti-SLAPP as a rule instead of keeping these frivolous avenues to sue is another sign of corruption in the judiciary that keeps lawyers employed.
If the lawsuit gets dismissed on summary judgment, that's one sign...
I'm of the opposite mind: motions for summary dismissal should be made as approachable as possible, ideally to the point that an individual with some basic internet-access level research can file one easily. That cuts down dramatically on the "we have enough resources to bleed you dry" style lawsuit, if you can simply say "Gigacorp is suing me for violation of their non-compete clause. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in this state. Please go away" before even needing to get a lawyer involved.
> if you can simply say "Gigacorp is suing me for violation of their non-compete clause. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in this state. Please go away"
I wonder, what prevents one from doing this now, and getting a lawyer only if that proves unsuccessful?
I wonder, what prevents one from doing this now, and getting a lawyer only if that proves unsuccessful?
"Loser pays" is a better and simpler legal system.
Which means that people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets.
As opposed to the current system, where people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets because they don't have the money for a lawyer.
If you have a solid case any good lawyer will take the case for a share of what you win - they won't win all such cases, but they have enough confidence in winning most that they can afford to accept a cases will be done without getting paid. However if there is loser pays lawyers cannot do this unless they either take a much larger share for the winnings (thus making it not worth anyone's time) so they can cover the lawyer fees when they lose a case they thought was obvious, or they need to warn potential clients there is risk they have to pay a lot of money on a loss.
Either way loser pays makes it more risky for a poor person to sue.
Either way loser pays makes it more risky for a poor person to sue.
Money obviously is a factor in any case. But, if you hire a lawyer, you at least have control of the costs. "Loser pays" means you pay for the company's Big Law outside counsel if you lose.
It would be interesting if “pays” was proportional to a party’s assets to ensure equal (yet not ruinous) pain.
It could just be capped at the lower of what the two legal teams charge. Both should have to submit their bills to the court, whichever charged less is the cap on what the loser has to pay for the other party's legal fees. That way each party is at most on the hook for twice what they paid their own legal team, assuming no other damages or penalties.
This is gameable (for instance by disclosing millions of unrelated pages of content during discovery). All you really need is for the judge to look at how much each legal team charged for what and make a ruling on what's reasonable for the loser to pay and what isn't.
[deleted]
John Deere is a 200 year old company and I am amazed at the goodwill they've burnt in a tenth of the time with these shenanigans.
I'm my personal opinion stuff like this are increasingly happening since MBAs started running every kind of companies, not only financial ones.
It seems to me that they push for some short term profit to get bonuses and promotions and then move to do the same things elsewhere.
However, it could also be a personal selection or survivor bias in my memory (I remember stuff like that more). Nevertheless, it really feels that very few companies optimize for the long run by prioritizing user satisfaction or similar metrics.
It seems to me that they push for some short term profit to get bonuses and promotions and then move to do the same things elsewhere.
However, it could also be a personal selection or survivor bias in my memory (I remember stuff like that more). Nevertheless, it really feels that very few companies optimize for the long run by prioritizing user satisfaction or similar metrics.
It's almost purely because of the connectedness and software-eats-the-world society we have today. Before it wasn't practical or even possible to withhold total ownership from consumers, but as soon as it was, corps jumped on it.
This. And software developers are helping to make the dystopia real.
This has been ongoing for at least 40 years.
For national security concerns alone, I’d wish we could incentivize growth by years and decades.
The knowledge loss alone is alarming.
For national security concerns alone, I’d wish we could incentivize growth by years and decades.
The knowledge loss alone is alarming.
"They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it.
If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air – or of the money to buy it – even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it’s right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: “It’s Their Land,” “It’s Their Water,” “It’s Their Coal,” “It’s Their Iron,” so you would say “It’s Their Air,” “These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?”
And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on “Christian Duty” in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers.
And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you’ll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to “justice” in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.’
If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air – or of the money to buy it – even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it’s right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: “It’s Their Land,” “It’s Their Water,” “It’s Their Coal,” “It’s Their Iron,” so you would say “It’s Their Air,” “These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?”
And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on “Christian Duty” in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers.
And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you’ll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to “justice” in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.’
Robert Tressell, The Ragged-Trousered Philathropists (1914) | Ch 15He misses the point. If air was like coal, it would require extraction effort to both us and deliver it, and significant capital to do it at scale. If air was like water, it would require significant effort just to keep it clean enough to use without a near-immediate, acute, negative reaction. Imagine every person staking claim of water as part of the "public." It wouldn't last very long. Nearby where I live, they had to drain an entire reservoir for a municipality because they caught someone sneaking in past a fence to urinate and defecate into it.
Now, since pollution spreads so far and so quickly in air, he may have a different point, whereby the corps freely ruin the air, and then could charge for purified, usable air. The root problem there is the pollution, not the purification---which takes effort and capital to perform at scale.
Tressell is just another person who takes real problems, the depression of the poor, and suggests that a simple fix is to just "don't let them do this," as if anything in the world is this simple.
Now, since pollution spreads so far and so quickly in air, he may have a different point, whereby the corps freely ruin the air, and then could charge for purified, usable air. The root problem there is the pollution, not the purification---which takes effort and capital to perform at scale.
Tressell is just another person who takes real problems, the depression of the poor, and suggests that a simple fix is to just "don't let them do this," as if anything in the world is this simple.
Outside incentives line up with that too. Most investors seem to want quick gains, not steady growth.
Things like 401ks are the biggest trick wall street pulled on the public at large. Now they don't need to defend their actions because many in the public are financially incentivized to defend them. It's not a sin if its done in the name of making my stock go up.
I hear you, but I just can't be convinced that was a motivator. The main motivator, I believe, was to drive costs WAY down by eliminating pensions while shifting that burden to the workers.
I guess what I'm saying is, the golden shields were just a happy accident of other terrible behaviors?
I guess what I'm saying is, the golden shields were just a happy accident of other terrible behaviors?
I heard this same kind of justification used by a CEO in a former workplace. I stood there thinking "I'm a multi-year permatemp with no 401k. Shove this BS and give me a good paying job so that I can put money toward retirement."; didn't say anything though.
It’s at least partly due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time.
To maintain or increase profits, it becomes necessary to exploit workers more to reduce costs and to prevent competition to increase prices.
To maintain or increase profits, it becomes necessary to exploit workers more to reduce costs and to prevent competition to increase prices.
I think it's a signal of changing market dynamics. Old John Deere just needed to sell the best tractors. They built a reputation and that was good enough.
Today's JD needs anti-repair policies, subscription pricing, and closed source code. It's easy to blame JD and maybe they do deserve blame but with so many companies pulled these shenanigans I think it's just a symptom of a wider economic pressures in the industry.
Today's JD needs anti-repair policies, subscription pricing, and closed source code. It's easy to blame JD and maybe they do deserve blame but with so many companies pulled these shenanigans I think it's just a symptom of a wider economic pressures in the industry.
The proof that it is not wider economic pressures is their profit margin trend:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DE/deere/profit-ma...
Due to advances in software, they saw an opportunity to increase their profit margins.
The question is, are there insufficient businesses that can sell what Deere sells without the restricting software at a lower price? Based on Deere’s success in increasing its profit margins, it seems like the answer is no.
So then the question is why are there insufficient businesses? Is selling what Deere sells so high barrier to entry that a new seller will not try? Is it possible to lower those barriers to entry?
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DE/deere/profit-ma...
Due to advances in software, they saw an opportunity to increase their profit margins.
The question is, are there insufficient businesses that can sell what Deere sells without the restricting software at a lower price? Based on Deere’s success in increasing its profit margins, it seems like the answer is no.
So then the question is why are there insufficient businesses? Is selling what Deere sells so high barrier to entry that a new seller will not try? Is it possible to lower those barriers to entry?
JD does the hard stuff that others aren't as willing to invest in: a large service network with spare parts and spare machines.
Harvest time can be make-or-break for farmers. Stuff you don't expect like a large storm at the end of summer can blow over corn stalks. That makes it a lot slower to run the combine at harvest time. If early fall storms are forecast you might literally need to get everyone available out in the field to harvest the corn in the next 3-4 days or you can expect the value of your crop to drop dramatically - everything will be wet and it's no longer warm or sunny enough for it to dry out. The field turns to mud and the grain elevator ain't gonna pay full price for water-soaked corn.
Everyone else is in the same boat so every available truck+driver is booked. Every mechanic is already 5 tractors backlogged from all the other farmers with emergencies.
Then your harvester/combine dies.
If you're with JD... they have a crews of engineers/mechanics and semi trailers loaded with parts driving around the country following the harvest. They will get you going again in a day or two, not 1-4 weeks later when some other dealer can fit you in or when the spare part you need arrives.
From JD's perspective that service network and parts stock costs a lot of money to maintain so it is available during harvest. They don't want customers going the cheap aftermarket route 11 months of the year because one month of sales can't sustain harvest support teams long-term. It's similar to peak electric generation capacity. Generator plants aren't economic if they only run 5% of the year at regular prices. In this analogy peak pricing has a limit: it would very quickly make harvesting the crop unprofitable.
FWIW I do think it's mostly a money grab by JD. Same reason Chamberlain closed their garage door opener API and has locked down myIQ: they want to force platforms, automakers, etc to pay for access to "their" customers and turn garage door openers into MRR. It's basically free money that you couldn't even imagine prior to the internet.
Harvest time can be make-or-break for farmers. Stuff you don't expect like a large storm at the end of summer can blow over corn stalks. That makes it a lot slower to run the combine at harvest time. If early fall storms are forecast you might literally need to get everyone available out in the field to harvest the corn in the next 3-4 days or you can expect the value of your crop to drop dramatically - everything will be wet and it's no longer warm or sunny enough for it to dry out. The field turns to mud and the grain elevator ain't gonna pay full price for water-soaked corn.
Everyone else is in the same boat so every available truck+driver is booked. Every mechanic is already 5 tractors backlogged from all the other farmers with emergencies.
Then your harvester/combine dies.
If you're with JD... they have a crews of engineers/mechanics and semi trailers loaded with parts driving around the country following the harvest. They will get you going again in a day or two, not 1-4 weeks later when some other dealer can fit you in or when the spare part you need arrives.
From JD's perspective that service network and parts stock costs a lot of money to maintain so it is available during harvest. They don't want customers going the cheap aftermarket route 11 months of the year because one month of sales can't sustain harvest support teams long-term. It's similar to peak electric generation capacity. Generator plants aren't economic if they only run 5% of the year at regular prices. In this analogy peak pricing has a limit: it would very quickly make harvesting the crop unprofitable.
FWIW I do think it's mostly a money grab by JD. Same reason Chamberlain closed their garage door opener API and has locked down myIQ: they want to force platforms, automakers, etc to pay for access to "their" customers and turn garage door openers into MRR. It's basically free money that you couldn't even imagine prior to the internet.
Growing up on a farm 30 years ago - we wouldn't have to wait a day or two. You would start fixing the problem straight away, worse case being someone would have to drive to get a part and then you would install it.
And many parts you could fix yourself with a well stocked workshop (think welding gear, cutting equipment, stuff to work on hydraulics, lots of random crap, spare bits of metal and a large space or in the field).
Then came the computers...
And many parts you could fix yourself with a well stocked workshop (think welding gear, cutting equipment, stuff to work on hydraulics, lots of random crap, spare bits of metal and a large space or in the field).
Then came the computers...
That's exactly right. My grandfather owned a fairly large farm and had a workshop so he and the workers could service the equipment on site. Some of the tractors lasted 30 years or more because they were so well maintained. Even in his 70s, the joints he welded when repairing them were far better than the originals.
I'm hoping I get 30 years out of my sub-compact tractor. I'd hate to be an old man and have to buy another one on retirement income...
These things are not lawnmowers, and they should (if cared for) last.
I refused to even shop John Deere, the green paint tax is too high and on top of it you have all this subscription and computer B.S.
These things are not lawnmowers, and they should (if cared for) last.
I refused to even shop John Deere, the green paint tax is too high and on top of it you have all this subscription and computer B.S.
At what cost. I'll bet your grandfather never tracked the cost of his workshop and time. Note too that the scenario is all hands on deck harvesting - skipping one day of harvest can (if there is worst case storm) cost your more in profit than a brand new combine.
If you have to pay someone labor the cost of keeping old machines running adds up a lot farther than most people realize. I know one construction company owner who in the 1990s worked it all out - all that 30 year old equipment that he was keeping running. Then he want to a dealer and signed a lease for $25,000/month, as he left the negotiations, reeling from the price tag, his account turned to him and said "you just saved yourself $30,000/month".
If you have to pay someone labor the cost of keeping old machines running adds up a lot farther than most people realize. I know one construction company owner who in the 1990s worked it all out - all that 30 year old equipment that he was keeping running. Then he want to a dealer and signed a lease for $25,000/month, as he left the negotiations, reeling from the price tag, his account turned to him and said "you just saved yourself $30,000/month".
When you outsource support, that carries costs that are difficult to measure and not carried in the lease. Your "supply chain of business" just became less robust.
If you're in a business where a couple of days in lead time for repair can make or break a harvest, (1) having a repairs workshop (2) investing in tools you can reliably repair yourself is essentially an insurance premium that protects your harvest by placing its success squarely within the hands of the part most interested in success.
This "insurance" aspect is something that accountants reliably fail to account for, because it doesn't show up in any business ledger. But this way of thinking generally wins because it increases fiscal efficiency, while the side-effect of making systems more fragile is consistently written-off.
If you're in a business where a couple of days in lead time for repair can make or break a harvest, (1) having a repairs workshop (2) investing in tools you can reliably repair yourself is essentially an insurance premium that protects your harvest by placing its success squarely within the hands of the part most interested in success.
This "insurance" aspect is something that accountants reliably fail to account for, because it doesn't show up in any business ledger. But this way of thinking generally wins because it increases fiscal efficiency, while the side-effect of making systems more fragile is consistently written-off.
What farmers do is instead have a relationship with a mechanic (normally dealer) who has spares. If they can't fix it in a couple hours they bring a loaner you can use until they get it fixed. Simple problems can be done in an hour by your plan, but anything complex you are in the shop instead of the field for hours.
I'm just saying that's JD's perspective on this issue.
Personally I think they're milking it for extra profit when they could be establishing a better relationship with their customers.
Personally I think they're milking it for extra profit when they could be establishing a better relationship with their customers.
We’ve got 2 S680s my uncle has a couple of X10s and a whole shed of s7 series and our whole district is green.
There were a lot of green machines sitting on the sidelines this harvest waiting for technicians to get their shit together to reset this or service that.
Back in the era of the 95XX or even 8820s you could do it all yourself.
Now a fucking light comes on and you need to call someone to drive over an hour from our nearest dealership to plug in his gizmo to say this needs to happen. Not to mention they totally understock on prices.
Harvesting is rapidly becoming unprofitable. Just because an X10 can strip 50 tons an hour doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile at $1m a machine. That’s why we keep a CTS2 on the sidelines. Mightn’t strip as fast but at least it’s reliable and we can maintain it without getting a site visit
There were a lot of green machines sitting on the sidelines this harvest waiting for technicians to get their shit together to reset this or service that.
Back in the era of the 95XX or even 8820s you could do it all yourself.
Now a fucking light comes on and you need to call someone to drive over an hour from our nearest dealership to plug in his gizmo to say this needs to happen. Not to mention they totally understock on prices.
Harvesting is rapidly becoming unprofitable. Just because an X10 can strip 50 tons an hour doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile at $1m a machine. That’s why we keep a CTS2 on the sidelines. Mightn’t strip as fast but at least it’s reliable and we can maintain it without getting a site visit
> If you're with JD... they have a crews of engineers/mechanics and semi trailers loaded with parts driving around the country following the harvest. They will get you going again in a day or two, not 1-4 weeks later when some other dealer can fit you in or when the spare part you need arrives.
that's not the story farmers are telling. Farmers have been complaining about not being able to get parts (https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=104450...) and saying that because they're forced to get repairs from John Deere that single source for service gets overwhelmed and they can end up waiting for weeks on technicians while watching their crops rot away. (https://www.ifixit.com/News/62788/john-deere-has-been-violat...)
that's not the story farmers are telling. Farmers have been complaining about not being able to get parts (https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=104450...) and saying that because they're forced to get repairs from John Deere that single source for service gets overwhelmed and they can end up waiting for weeks on technicians while watching their crops rot away. (https://www.ifixit.com/News/62788/john-deere-has-been-violat...)
I'm not saying I agree with JD, just explaining their reasoning.
Then surely, instead of trying to poison the legal landscape around these issues for everybody, they could cover their business needs by no longer selling that equipment, but leasing it.
Then they could make the terms of the lease be amenable to the economics of their business without working to make things worse for everybody else.
Then they could make the terms of the lease be amenable to the economics of their business without working to make things worse for everybody else.
>They don't want customers going the cheap aftermarket route 11 months of the year because one month of sales can't sustain harvest support teams long-term.
It can if you charge more for it...
It can if you charge more for it...
So they already do that. There is a very distinct price difference between off season repairs and emergency field repairs. Both on labor and parts.
> They will get you going again in a day or two
what if they prevent you from doing it yourself in a minute or two?
what if they prevent you from doing it yourself in a minute or two?
> In this analogy peak pricing has a limit: it would very quickly make harvesting the crop unprofitable.
What? Equalizing or normalizing the costs over the entire year by price gouging on repairs during non-peak months doesn't suddenly make the total cost any different. Farmer's are absolutely bearing the cost having a service network that can satisfy peak demand no matter what kind of pricing scheme is backing it.
If a low priority repair costs $5 in the off season, but $55 for the same thing during the peak, farmers aren't better off getting charged $30 for both. It's still $60 at the end of the year. If anything, that penalizes the farmer that's doing preventative maintenance in the off-season and benefits the farmer that leaves their equipment to break down at critical times. The responsible person is subsidizing the irresponsible person in that case.
What? Equalizing or normalizing the costs over the entire year by price gouging on repairs during non-peak months doesn't suddenly make the total cost any different. Farmer's are absolutely bearing the cost having a service network that can satisfy peak demand no matter what kind of pricing scheme is backing it.
If a low priority repair costs $5 in the off season, but $55 for the same thing during the peak, farmers aren't better off getting charged $30 for both. It's still $60 at the end of the year. If anything, that penalizes the farmer that's doing preventative maintenance in the off-season and benefits the farmer that leaves their equipment to break down at critical times. The responsible person is subsidizing the irresponsible person in that case.
Maybe it just takes longer for the market to react. Selling farming equipment has a local component to it: you need local dealers and a robust service network. Countries also tend have protectionist policies about the market, since farming is of strategic importance. All of this slows down the expansion of competitors. Add to that that the average lifetime of farming equipment is very high.
The ~10 years that John Deere has shown this behavior might just be too little for the market to adjust.
The ~10 years that John Deere has shown this behavior might just be too little for the market to adjust.
> I think it's a signal of changing market dynamics. Old John Deere just needed to sell the best tractors. They built a reputation and that was good enough.
So is the changing market dynamic is that John Deere now sells shitty tractors which means they have to depend on DRM and forcing people to get repairs through them in order to be profitable?
I suspect the reason so many companies resort to user-hostile anti-competitive practices is simply greed and a willingness to screw over anyone to make an extra buck at any cost. They want to have ever growing profits and growth which means they have to come up with more and more ways to take our money.
So is the changing market dynamic is that John Deere now sells shitty tractors which means they have to depend on DRM and forcing people to get repairs through them in order to be profitable?
I suspect the reason so many companies resort to user-hostile anti-competitive practices is simply greed and a willingness to screw over anyone to make an extra buck at any cost. They want to have ever growing profits and growth which means they have to come up with more and more ways to take our money.
Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over.
Farmers are still buying Deere equipment for a lot of reasons, including the fact that Deere has by far the best service network during planting and harvest seasons. You will have the least likelihood of disastrous downtime with Deere equipment. Forcing you to get service from the service network makes sure that the service network continues to exist.
It's a complicated situation. (I support right to repair, btw)
Farmers are still buying Deere equipment for a lot of reasons, including the fact that Deere has by far the best service network during planting and harvest seasons. You will have the least likelihood of disastrous downtime with Deere equipment. Forcing you to get service from the service network makes sure that the service network continues to exist.
It's a complicated situation. (I support right to repair, btw)
> Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over.
Which doesn't actually mean they aren't screwing people over. Personally, I don't know if they are or not -- I'm not a farmer, and I don't know what all the issues specific to farmers are.
But the arguments that JD are making are ones that are bad for everyone outside of the farm equipment business. In that sense, they're helping to screw all of us over.
Which doesn't actually mean they aren't screwing people over. Personally, I don't know if they are or not -- I'm not a farmer, and I don't know what all the issues specific to farmers are.
But the arguments that JD are making are ones that are bad for everyone outside of the farm equipment business. In that sense, they're helping to screw all of us over.
As an electronics tech, I can reverse engineer just about any fault code being thrown at me by a computer. Logic analyzers and oscilloscopes don't lie and my equipment has more than 100 channels. There are countless EEs in USA. Some of them would rise to the challenge. I certainly would repair electronic faults in tractors. To me, they would be just another PCB.
There's no difference between having a capacitor replaced or EEPROM reflashed by someone wearing a green shirt and not. If the fault is gone, it's gone. Publishing the tools to validate repair would alleviate the pressure on JD's service network.
There's no difference between having a capacitor replaced or EEPROM reflashed by someone wearing a green shirt and not. If the fault is gone, it's gone. Publishing the tools to validate repair would alleviate the pressure on JD's service network.
A narcissist never means to make other people's lives hell. They are of course the best at everything they do, and if you can't keep up, that is your problem not theirs.
Calling it narcissism is uncharitable. This comment [1] goes a long way towards explaining the whole story. The comparison with electrical peak demand is apt.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228
Calling it uncharitable is narcissism. This has been theft and lawfare on a massive scale.
I’m a big supporter of right to repair. But now that I’ve read that perspective I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think if JD loses then we end up in a situation where the service they provided (timely repairs during a crisis in the harvest season) is no longer available at any price.
Then what? We probably see higher volatility due to an increase in crop failures, but maybe lower average food prices overall.
Then what? We probably see higher volatility due to an increase in crop failures, but maybe lower average food prices overall.
Nah. John Deere pulls in billions. They made record profits in 2021, record profits again last year, made record profits again this fall and they predict that they'll break their record yet again next year. Last year their CEO got $20,300,151.
They can more than afford to offer a high level of service at harvest time without ripping off their customers and screwing over everyone else as well by opposing our right to repair.
As it stands their current level of service isn't even that great. Farmers have been complaining about not being able to get parts (https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=104450...) and saying that because they're forced to get repairs from John Deere that single source for service gets overwhelmed and they can end up waiting for weeks on technicians while watching their crops rot away. (https://www.ifixit.com/News/62788/john-deere-has-been-violat...)
They can more than afford to offer a high level of service at harvest time without ripping off their customers and screwing over everyone else as well by opposing our right to repair.
As it stands their current level of service isn't even that great. Farmers have been complaining about not being able to get parts (https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=104450...) and saying that because they're forced to get repairs from John Deere that single source for service gets overwhelmed and they can end up waiting for weeks on technicians while watching their crops rot away. (https://www.ifixit.com/News/62788/john-deere-has-been-violat...)
30 years ago, John Deere had that Network of service technicians and ready on demand parts. It was probably slightly smaller, then, and many of the farmers (both small independent and large corporate farmers) had more of a stock and more knowledge of how to repair their tools, but not fundamentally different. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by the computer revolution. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by just in time logistics. Both have allowed John Deere to do more with less by understanding where it's stock of inventory is better, rather than having to have a staff of quartermasters running those books. That efficiency is not because of their DRM, but the rising tide of computer logistics.
Having exclusive ability to repair their tractors does not make it easier for John Deere to stock that inventory. It makes it more profitable for them to stock that inventory, because they know they can sell it. That profit allows them to tighten their margins elsewhere, and to expand their belt elsewhere, but it does not fundamentally change the actual repair. It does make it easier in some ways that they can exploit supply and demand and economies of scale.
There are other ways that John Deere can enforce said Monopoly. They can sign contracts. Maintenance contracts are very common in this space, stating that you will only do business with John deere. That's not an unreasonable thing to do. I am a okay if every farmer wants to sign that contract with John Deere. If John Deere were to make that part of every purchase, at least it would be understood that it were part of every purchase, that you could not buy John Deere tractors without buying their service contracts, and how that interacts with existing antitrust law is a separate problem. One that has been discussed to death and will continue to be.
Having exclusive ability to repair their tractors does not make it easier for John Deere to stock that inventory. It makes it more profitable for them to stock that inventory, because they know they can sell it. That profit allows them to tighten their margins elsewhere, and to expand their belt elsewhere, but it does not fundamentally change the actual repair. It does make it easier in some ways that they can exploit supply and demand and economies of scale.
There are other ways that John Deere can enforce said Monopoly. They can sign contracts. Maintenance contracts are very common in this space, stating that you will only do business with John deere. That's not an unreasonable thing to do. I am a okay if every farmer wants to sign that contract with John Deere. If John Deere were to make that part of every purchase, at least it would be understood that it were part of every purchase, that you could not buy John Deere tractors without buying their service contracts, and how that interacts with existing antitrust law is a separate problem. One that has been discussed to death and will continue to be.
We need JD protectionism to.... have a network of professionals that can repair tractors?
That's weird, cars get by just fine on having mechanics in every town.
That's weird, cars get by just fine on having mechanics in every town.
Reform idea:
Capital gains tax should be split into two categories: Medium term (1+ year) and very long term (7+ years). Very long term tax would be much lower than today's tax, while medium term would be higher. This reform would reduce MBA's plundering company goodwill and trust for short-term quarterly boosts and reward long-term thinking.
Capital gains tax should be split into two categories: Medium term (1+ year) and very long term (7+ years). Very long term tax would be much lower than today's tax, while medium term would be higher. This reform would reduce MBA's plundering company goodwill and trust for short-term quarterly boosts and reward long-term thinking.
You're trying to exacerbate an existing problem with the tax code.
If you invest in a company that goes on to become a conglomerate, nearly all of the value is now a capital gain. You can't invest it in something else without inducing a taxable event. Which means that investors prefer to keep their money in existing conglomerates than move it into prospective competitors. It's a huge tax preference to keep money invested in megacorps rather than new challengers.
It may even be the cause rather than the solution here. Because selling shares of a company that had previously been growing has a major tax disadvantage, investors then want those companies to keep growing even though they've saturated their market, so they demand abusive practices which are long-term detrimental to the company in order to keep the short-term growth rate competitive. Meanwhile this deprives potential challengers of capital which makes abusive practices more effective by making markets less competitive.
It could even make it worse. If you've invested in a company 5 years ago, you're stuck holding it for another two years and now you want to goose the stock price so it peaks when you hit the lower tax rate.
We may be better off with the opposite -- allow basis transfers without a taxable event when you're only changing what you're investing in rather than divesting in order to spend the money. Remove the tax preference for abusive conglomerates.
If you invest in a company that goes on to become a conglomerate, nearly all of the value is now a capital gain. You can't invest it in something else without inducing a taxable event. Which means that investors prefer to keep their money in existing conglomerates than move it into prospective competitors. It's a huge tax preference to keep money invested in megacorps rather than new challengers.
It may even be the cause rather than the solution here. Because selling shares of a company that had previously been growing has a major tax disadvantage, investors then want those companies to keep growing even though they've saturated their market, so they demand abusive practices which are long-term detrimental to the company in order to keep the short-term growth rate competitive. Meanwhile this deprives potential challengers of capital which makes abusive practices more effective by making markets less competitive.
It could even make it worse. If you've invested in a company 5 years ago, you're stuck holding it for another two years and now you want to goose the stock price so it peaks when you hit the lower tax rate.
We may be better off with the opposite -- allow basis transfers without a taxable event when you're only changing what you're investing in rather than divesting in order to spend the money. Remove the tax preference for abusive conglomerates.
> allow basis transfers without a taxable event when you're only changing what you're investing in rather than divesting in order to spend the money
This is an appealing idea, but it comes at the expense of even further reducing taxes that are typically paid by wealthy people.
How to beneficially tax equity-related transactions is a really tricky problem to solve.
Trying to lay out the balance of an ideal solution:
(1) We want people to invest in equities (2) we do want to [eventually] tax profits (3) We do want investors to adjust allocations from low-growth-expectation assets to high-growth-expectation assets, because high-growth-expectation is a signal of filling a gap in demand.
I think I'd be on board with your suggestion, which essentially trades off 2 for 3.
I think we'd need to bundle it with a serious revision of estate taxes and the various schemes people use to get around them. So you're definitely taxed when you convert your tax-aware capital gains into income, or your heirs are taxed when those capital gains become their inheritance.
Maybe if we bundle two unpopular reforms together, we can get a popular reform. :)
This is an appealing idea, but it comes at the expense of even further reducing taxes that are typically paid by wealthy people.
How to beneficially tax equity-related transactions is a really tricky problem to solve.
Trying to lay out the balance of an ideal solution:
(1) We want people to invest in equities (2) we do want to [eventually] tax profits (3) We do want investors to adjust allocations from low-growth-expectation assets to high-growth-expectation assets, because high-growth-expectation is a signal of filling a gap in demand.
I think I'd be on board with your suggestion, which essentially trades off 2 for 3.
I think we'd need to bundle it with a serious revision of estate taxes and the various schemes people use to get around them. So you're definitely taxed when you convert your tax-aware capital gains into income, or your heirs are taxed when those capital gains become their inheritance.
Maybe if we bundle two unpopular reforms together, we can get a popular reform. :)
> This is an appealing idea, but it comes at the expense of even further reducing taxes that are typically paid by wealthy people.
It is in theory, but in practice it's already avoided in a thousand ways. The first is, of course, by just not selling the shares in whatever you hold right now, which is the perverse incentive we're trying to fix. Then there are the outright avoidance strategies, like foreign holding companies in jurisdictions with different tax laws, and even the fully intentional ones, like tax-deferred retirement accounts.
> I think we'd need to bundle it with a serious revision of estate taxes and the various schemes people use to get around them.
Combining this with the removal of the step up in basis on inheritance would basically do it, and would remove a major justification for keeping that -- it exists in large part to allow the heirs to sell the asset instead of being coerced by tax incentives into investing into whatever their parents did, i.e. the same thing we're trying to fix here.
This way the heirs could sell the asset and buy another one without a taxable event, but don't get a basis reset. So if they want to spend the money, they have to pay the tax.
Of course, the even simpler version of this is to just eliminate income taxes in general and use a consumption tax, then make it progressive by adding a UBI. But maybe one step at a time.
It is in theory, but in practice it's already avoided in a thousand ways. The first is, of course, by just not selling the shares in whatever you hold right now, which is the perverse incentive we're trying to fix. Then there are the outright avoidance strategies, like foreign holding companies in jurisdictions with different tax laws, and even the fully intentional ones, like tax-deferred retirement accounts.
> I think we'd need to bundle it with a serious revision of estate taxes and the various schemes people use to get around them.
Combining this with the removal of the step up in basis on inheritance would basically do it, and would remove a major justification for keeping that -- it exists in large part to allow the heirs to sell the asset instead of being coerced by tax incentives into investing into whatever their parents did, i.e. the same thing we're trying to fix here.
This way the heirs could sell the asset and buy another one without a taxable event, but don't get a basis reset. So if they want to spend the money, they have to pay the tax.
Of course, the even simpler version of this is to just eliminate income taxes in general and use a consumption tax, then make it progressive by adding a UBI. But maybe one step at a time.
Interesting idea. I have recently been reading John C. Bogle's work (of Vanguard fame) and he seems to be of the opinion, from my interpretation, that short term speculation will have disasterious consequences for the Stock Market and that we need a sort of Sin Tax to discourage such behavior. Your idea would track with that.
Not just the stock market. The short term thinking person induced by that has knock off issues all over the place, from environmental to healthcare to the physical harm of workers being pushed too hard in the name of short term profit.
I think you can get around this by just keeping ownership for 7 years, but promising any profit/loss from 6 of those 7 years to someone else via a private contract-for-differnce.
Or just make it a function of time, e.g. varying proportional to 1/(time in years).
I see why you might think that but is there really data to back it up?
Making good products and respecting your customers is a great way to stay in business. I don't see why china selling tractors would change that. If anything, it would matter more than ever.
Making good products and respecting your customers is a great way to stay in business. I don't see why china selling tractors would change that. If anything, it would matter more than ever.
Because the vast majority of customers are fickle and estimating true long term cost is very difficult so many make purchasing decisions based on sticker price. Also most farms are corporate farms where I suspect they just deal with JD support contracts as the price of doing business based into their financial models vs having their own.
I would say it's more greed than pressure.
Today's JD needs anti-repair policies, subscription pricing, and closed source code
Is JD being evil or are they just bowing to competitive pressure? At a certain point the question becomes hard to answer. When certain behaviors we'd consider awful have been normalized throughout a sector of society (management in this case), there's always an argument about whether someone can be blamed for "just following orders" or "just implementing standard procedures" etc.
Is JD being evil or are they just bowing to competitive pressure? At a certain point the question becomes hard to answer. When certain behaviors we'd consider awful have been normalized throughout a sector of society (management in this case), there's always an argument about whether someone can be blamed for "just following orders" or "just implementing standard procedures" etc.
Part of their reasoning why the software needs to be locked down is that tractors are priced based on horsepower and they use software to limit the horsepower of different tractors (which use the same actual engine). Otherwise, one could pay for (numbers made up) a 100 horsepower tractor and then unlock it so that they now have 150 hp.
Unfortunately for farmers, everything is controlled by software, so every repair now needs a service call and JD has been cutting back on service techs so that during peak activity times (planting/harvest - where working 24 hrs isn't uncommon) it can be either (a) put your tractor on a flat bed and have it trucked hundreds of miles, or (b) wait a couple weeks.
It comes across as evil to me.
Unfortunately for farmers, everything is controlled by software, so every repair now needs a service call and JD has been cutting back on service techs so that during peak activity times (planting/harvest - where working 24 hrs isn't uncommon) it can be either (a) put your tractor on a flat bed and have it trucked hundreds of miles, or (b) wait a couple weeks.
It comes across as evil to me.
> Is JD being evil or are they just bowing to competitive pressure?
That's not an either-or kind of thing.
That's not an either-or kind of thing.
I understand that they're trying to preserve their service network, but that's not a valid reason to prevent people from repairing their purchased machines.
Happy to see this going through.
Happy to see this going through.
This is good to see. It does not seem to involve any right to repair legislation though. Looks like it's purely an antitrust case where the claim is that John Deere is monopolizing the repair industry through consolidation.
We MUST get right to repair as not having it deeply widens the inequality gap. I am a conservative Republican, and this legal change will do a lot to resolve legitimate grievances the left has been pushing on.
‘Bout time
https://agupdate.com/farmandranchguide/news/state-and-region...